Yes I agree with you 100%, it is less than it is currently. The point I'm making is that it should be £100 in full or £100 in installments, if the Government really want to help those on the bread line then don't take that extra £5 out of their pockets!

about 2 years ago is when I was almost priced off the road, last renewal they succeeded. It cost me my job, so they increased my insurance more as 'I am now more likely to drive my car during the day' (clean license and 9 years no claims)

The Govt are supposed to looking after the interest of the public, help those in need not charging them more to spread the cost.

I think we are in agreement, just maybe a slight miss understanding about what we are talking about when we say less. However I would have to say that whilst it may not be the step you wanted, in the end they are coming up with ways of making it more afordable 5% drop in the price of anything is still a drop, as well as being able to spread the costs monthly rather than every 6 to 12 months.

like I say, I'm not saying I agree with the statement of paying more so you can make things more affordable, but whatever way you spin this, in the end it is less than and available in an even more manageable way than it was before.

It's a matter of perspective, if you were living at or just below, or just above the poverty line, you'd feel differently, and unfortunately, they're always the ones to feel the pinch first. So many of the youthes feel they lave little or nothing to lose, so crime can escalate, along with resentment and so on, but I'm getting off topic.

Very true, don't think because of the company car that the cost of these things are no worries to me, I've gone from a 2 car to a 1 car family because of the costs of certain things and the cost of £190 of Car tax for a 1.6 petrol Peugot 307 is one of those things. I'm also not asking for sympathy with that statement, I am still privilaged enough to not count myself as unfortunately for the people you were referring to.

about 2 years ago is when I was almost priced off the road, last renewal they succeeded. It cost me my job, so they increased my insurance more as 'I am now more likely to drive my car during the day' (clean license and 9 years no claims)

That's the insurance companies for you. Apparently it's more riskier to insure you if you don't have a job. A bit of a weird explanation.

What would be better is if the insurance companies were forced to make this data available to the public out in the open, then we can see for ourselves if jobless people were really a riskier group. If they were, then fair enough, as the data is there so no one can dispute it, but it's just annoying that right now we can't verify why it is, or why people have to pay more when in certain places of the country.

I think we are in agreement, just maybe a slight miss understanding about what we are talking about when we say less. However I would have to say that whilst it may not be the step you wanted, in the end they are coming up with ways of making it more afordable 5% drop in the price of anything is still a drop, as well as being able to spread the costs monthly rather than every 6 to 12 months.

like I say, I'm not saying I agree with the statement of paying more so you can make things more affordable, but whatever way you spin this, in the end it is less than and available in an even more manageable way than it was before.

Very true, don't think because of the company car that the cost of these things are no worries to me, I've gone from a 2 car to a 1 car family because of the costs of certain things and the cost of £190 of Car tax for a 1.6 petrol Peugot 307 is one of those things. I'm also not asking for sympathy with that statement, I am still privilaged enough to not count myself as unfortunately for the people you were referring to.

I feel that someone needs to speak for them, I also can agree that I'm probably not the right person for this job, but as someone who's experienced this extreme, I just felt something needed to be said.

That's the insurance companies for you. Apparently it's more riskier to insure you if you don't have a job. A bit of a weird explanation.

What would be better is if the insurance companies were forced to make this data available to the public out in the open, then we can see for ourselves if jobless people were really a riskier group. If they were, then fair enough, as the data is there so no one can dispute it, but it's just annoying that right now we can't verify why it is, or why people have to pay more when in certain places of the country.

Thank you, I was beginning to think you were the type of person who would say, it's the fault of the poor for being poor.
I'm glad to have been mistaken, a reasonable and diplomatic person can make a subject debate enjoyable (for lack of a better word)

Offering monthly direct debits = price hikes in VED will look less severe and so can be raised more each year.

It's easier to say "VED is going up £2 per month" than "£24 per year".

I'm surprised they aren't just offloading it onto the price of petrol so it's based on usage rather than a flat rate depending on emissions/engine size.

Possibly, but 1. at the end of the day it's just speculation as to the next move and the motive and 2. you can still pay in 6-months or 12-months periods if you want.

Offloading it onto petrol - petrol is already mostly tax-based anyway. At the prices it is now, no one wants it to go up by any amount.

At the moment, VED is priced in such a way to encourage people to use less-polluting vehicles. Putting it on petrol would lose that benefit.

What they've been talking about for a while is getting rid of VED entirely and making you pay for the roads that you use. But that wouldn't address the "encouraging people to use less-polluting cars" issue that they are currently using the VED pricing to do.